Hello hive mind. I'm the arbitrator for my group and we're about to start our 3rd campaign. We're doing the law and misrule campaign and I'll be also playing as the Palatine Enforcers. They seem a great pick for an arbitrator.
I'm made a few test lists and figured our what I want but in my last test game we stumbled over the Magnacles equipment rule.
'A fighter equipped with Magnacles can try to lock them onto an enemy in base contact as an Attack (Basic) action. The target must make an Initiative check to avoid the attack. If this test is failed they are locked in place and cannot move, cannot make ranged attacks and can only make melee attacks at -2 to hit.' (P.120 BoJ)
So at face value this seems a particular type of action which occurs automatically and the target rolls the initiative check to avoid it. Being a basic action it is important to distinguish this from the Fight (Basic) action. But this is where it becomes problematic. The only way this can be used seems to be in an ongoing combat as there is no reference to any such action as an 'Attack (Basic)' action anywhere in any book. After searching online a Reddit user pointed out the phrase 'Attack action' is used in the 66 Memorable Death description on the Lasting Injury table (P.87 Necromunda Rulebook). In this instance an 'Attack action' seems to refer to any action that was an attack whether ranged or close combat. In both the Shooting and Close Combat sections in the first paragraph these are called both called 'attacks' (P.64 & P.68 Necromunda Rulebook). So this seems a fairly pointless piece of wargear considering most enemy fighters will have a 3+ or 4+ initiative and the fighter has to survive a round of combat to use it.
So next I consider the magnacles attack within the context of the Palanite Enforcers broader context. They have a lot of weapons that have the 'Concussion' rule such as the Concussion Carbine, Concussion Ram or the Stun Rounds for the Subjugator pattern grenade launcher. This is an exciting rule as if an enforcer hits an enemy with any of these weapons (2 of them are blast), the enemy will suffer a -2 initiative for the remainder of the round. The magnacles then seem designed to work specifically with these weapons. An enemy is targeted, concussed, then another enforcer moves in and magnacles them while they are too concussed to easily avoid the magnacles attack. This is again problematic as previously established considering that magnacles can only be used in an ongoing close combat, Rules as Written. For this combination to work, a friendly fighter would need to fire into an ongoing combat and only hit the enemy model (again 2 of those 3 weapons mentioned are blast), or hit both but not seriously injure the friendly model. Following the successful ranged attack the fighter in melee could then use the magnacles attack. This seems a stupid way to perform the magnacles attack with the number of steps and risk involved.
I'm convinced that magnacles are intended to work alongside the 'Concussion' rule and should therefore also be used as a substitute for the free Fight (Basic) action during a Charge (Double) action. This is how I'm thinking of house ruling it as I'd really like to lean into this faction's baked in skills/abilities/wargear and weapons. The enforcer attacker is losing their free Fight (Basic) attacks and the opponent will be able to retaliate as normal (or at -2 WS if magnacles is successful) regardless.
I'd like to know if other players or arbitrators have come across this issue and are house ruling it? Have I missed anything in my analysis of the rules around this issue? Do people foresee any major problems with the house rule?
I'm made a few test lists and figured our what I want but in my last test game we stumbled over the Magnacles equipment rule.
'A fighter equipped with Magnacles can try to lock them onto an enemy in base contact as an Attack (Basic) action. The target must make an Initiative check to avoid the attack. If this test is failed they are locked in place and cannot move, cannot make ranged attacks and can only make melee attacks at -2 to hit.' (P.120 BoJ)
So at face value this seems a particular type of action which occurs automatically and the target rolls the initiative check to avoid it. Being a basic action it is important to distinguish this from the Fight (Basic) action. But this is where it becomes problematic. The only way this can be used seems to be in an ongoing combat as there is no reference to any such action as an 'Attack (Basic)' action anywhere in any book. After searching online a Reddit user pointed out the phrase 'Attack action' is used in the 66 Memorable Death description on the Lasting Injury table (P.87 Necromunda Rulebook). In this instance an 'Attack action' seems to refer to any action that was an attack whether ranged or close combat. In both the Shooting and Close Combat sections in the first paragraph these are called both called 'attacks' (P.64 & P.68 Necromunda Rulebook). So this seems a fairly pointless piece of wargear considering most enemy fighters will have a 3+ or 4+ initiative and the fighter has to survive a round of combat to use it.
So next I consider the magnacles attack within the context of the Palanite Enforcers broader context. They have a lot of weapons that have the 'Concussion' rule such as the Concussion Carbine, Concussion Ram or the Stun Rounds for the Subjugator pattern grenade launcher. This is an exciting rule as if an enforcer hits an enemy with any of these weapons (2 of them are blast), the enemy will suffer a -2 initiative for the remainder of the round. The magnacles then seem designed to work specifically with these weapons. An enemy is targeted, concussed, then another enforcer moves in and magnacles them while they are too concussed to easily avoid the magnacles attack. This is again problematic as previously established considering that magnacles can only be used in an ongoing close combat, Rules as Written. For this combination to work, a friendly fighter would need to fire into an ongoing combat and only hit the enemy model (again 2 of those 3 weapons mentioned are blast), or hit both but not seriously injure the friendly model. Following the successful ranged attack the fighter in melee could then use the magnacles attack. This seems a stupid way to perform the magnacles attack with the number of steps and risk involved.
I'm convinced that magnacles are intended to work alongside the 'Concussion' rule and should therefore also be used as a substitute for the free Fight (Basic) action during a Charge (Double) action. This is how I'm thinking of house ruling it as I'd really like to lean into this faction's baked in skills/abilities/wargear and weapons. The enforcer attacker is losing their free Fight (Basic) attacks and the opponent will be able to retaliate as normal (or at -2 WS if magnacles is successful) regardless.
I'd like to know if other players or arbitrators have come across this issue and are house ruling it? Have I missed anything in my analysis of the rules around this issue? Do people foresee any major problems with the house rule?
